Today, we at long last had a chance to confront the Attorney General for the horribly wrong direction our nation has taken in fighting the war against terror. My concerns go far beyond the Patriot Act, as bad as that legislation is, but apply to the full gamut of powers the Justice Department and Administration have excercised since September 11. Progressive Democrats of America has my statement in full from today's hearing.

We will have many more hearings before this law comes up for renewal, please let me know your thoughts and concerns about the Patriot Act and the government's war against terror.

Today, at 1pm, the Attorney General of the United States will testify before the House Judiciary Committee. It has been an oft-repeated claim of the Department of Justice that there have been no documented abuses of the Patriot Act.

This statement is patently untrue. While it has been difficult to get a complete accounting of the Patriot Act�s misuse (largely due to the Department�s own unwillingness to provide the public with the most basic information about how the Act is being used), the American Civil Liberties Union has extensively catalogued a number of abuses .

One that stands out to me is the case of Brandon Mayfield. For those unfamiliar with Mr. Mayfield�s case, he is a Muslim-American lawyer from Portland, Oregon. In the wake of the terrorist bombing in Madrid, Spain, the Federal Bureau of Investigation claimed to have found Mr. Mayfield�s fingerprint at the site of the bombing. They subsequently placed Mayfield under arrest as a material witness to a crime of terrorism (I would discuss what an abuse of the material witness statute this constitutes, but this would be a much longer entry if I did).

Mayfield insisted he had not visited Spain and had no knowledge or involvement in any terrorist activity. He was telling the truth. The FBI has conceded the point, and even John Ashcroft apologized publicly to him.

On June 16, 2004, I sent the Department�s Inspector General a letter asking him to initiate an investigation of the errors that led to the arrest and detention of Brandon Mayfield in association with the terrorist bombing in Madrid. He responded that his office would indeed open an investigation to examine the erroneous identification of Mr. Mayfield through faulty FBI fingerprint analysis and the decision to pursue him as a material witness to that crime. That investigation is ongoing.

While we have been long aware of the injustice done to Mayfield as a result of his detention, we are just now becoming aware of the extent to which his civil liberties were otherwise violated. Just yesterday, I received a letter, sent to Mayfield�s attorney by the Department, which reveals that on an undisclosed number of occasions, government agents secretly searched his apartment, copied hard drives from his computer and even seized DNA samples. This is horrifying.

Worse still, the Department still refuses to give Mayfield a full accounting of what searches were conducted, when they were conducted, and what exactly was seized. When an innocent man can�t even find out the extent to which his rights have been violated, something is very very wrong with our system of checks and balances. This is law enforcement run amok.

After some back and forth yesterday, the Department at last conceded that the Patriot Act was used in the Mayfield case. Could there be a more stark example of its abuse? Today, I am asking the Inspector General to expand his probe of the Mayfield case to include these matters.

The following are some of the more chilling portions of the Department�s letter to Mayfield�s attorneys:

�"Mr. Mayfield is hereby notified that the following property was seized, altered or reproduced during FISA searches of his residence: three hard drives of three desk top computers and one loose hard drive were copied; several documents in the residence were digitally photographed; ten DNA samples were taken and preserved on cotton swabs and six cigarette butts were seized for DNA analysis; and approximately 335 digital photographs were taken of the residence and the property therein." ..... "Mr. Mayfield is also hereby notified that he was the target of electronic surveillance and other physical searches authorized pursuant to FISA."

(ADMINISTRATOR UPDATE: Cross posted at DailyKos. Please recommend at Kos so others will have the opportunity to review)

It was another busy day. Committee Democrats also filed their views on my Resolution of Inquiry regarding Gannongate. Raw Story has this story, and our views, also.

Rep. Slaughter and I have been searching for some way to uncover how a phony journalist was given unfettered access to the White House to ask softball questions deriding Democrats. So far, we have not gotten any meaningful answers. However, by forcing the GOP to vote down my Resolution to formally put these questions to the Administration, we at least have some accountability.

Moreover, we have not given up our pursuit. We filed a FOIA request, and intend to pursue this until we get answers, or file legal appeals if we do not. So, we have not forgotten and we will not give up.

Today, committee Democrats filed their report on the special interest bankruptcy bill. Raw Story has a copy and story on their site. I have been fighting this bill for more than eight years. However, this year it has already passed the Senate, and the Republicans are trying to push it through the House without any amendments to avoid a conference, so we may have at long last reached the end of the rope. The bill was scheduled to be taken up Thursday, but since the House is adjourning early because of the Pope�s funeral, consideration will be delayed until next week.

The bill is merely the latest in the GOP�s assault on the American consumer. Last month, we passed into law the special interest class action bill. Next week, we take up the bankruptcy bill.

The bill is not what its supporters claim. For example, its scope is not limited to wealthy debtors; rather it gives creditors massive new rights to bring threatening motions against low income debtors, permits credit card companies to reclaim common household goods which are of little value to them, and makes it next to impossible for people below the poverty line to keep their house or their car in bankruptcy.

Nor can it be fairly said that the bill cracks down on creditor abuse. The bill does absolutely nothing to discourage abusive under-age lending, nothing to discourage reckless lending to the developmentally disabled, nothing to regulate the practice of so-called �subprime� lending to persons with no means or little ability to repay their debts, and nothing to crack down on unscrupulous pay-day lenders that prey on members of the armed forces.

It is my hope that the bill, and the harm it will cause on ordinary working Americans, is not forgotten by the American people. Every day we need to remind the public of what bills like this do, and the damage they bring to our populace.

During the protracted coverage and debate of the Schiavo matter, I was struck by the disrespectful and reckless language being used against judges. One by one, my Republican colleagues took the House floor to attack judges as "unconscionable," lacking "human compassion," needing to be held in "contempt," and having "answering to do." I remember thinking that such dehumanizing rhetoric is especially dangerous in these times towards anyone, let alone judges.

Outside the halls of Congress, words flew even more recklessly and the House Majority Leader Tom DeLay called the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube an "act of medical terrorism." The Reverend Pat Robertson called it "judicial murder."

I remember thinking about Judge Rowland Barnes of Georgia, who less than a month ago, was shot to death by an angry litigant in his courtroom, along with two other court employees. I remember thinking that irresponsible words can lead to tragic results. I thought of Judge Joan Lefkow, whose husband and mother are thought to have been murdered by an aggrieved litigant. Since then, I have been trying to think of the most appropriate forum to gently call this to my colleagues' attention, and to remind them that -- no matter how strong our feelings about individual decisions and cases, we need to be cognizant of the influence we may have -- especially on those that may be disturbed, and we always need to know that -- as elected officials -- our words have consequences.

That was to be a subtle message. It is unfortunate that today my message must be less subtle because things are very quickly spinning out of control.

First, the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, Tom DeLay, made the outrageous statement, and apparent threat, that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." When given repeated opportunities to disavow the interpretation of his comments as a threat or incitement to violence, DeLay has repeatedly declined to do so.

Tonight, my staff showed me a quote from Senator John Cornyn (found on Americablog) that speaks for itself: "And finally, I � I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news. And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in -- engage in violence. Certainly without any justification but a concern that I have that I wanted to share."

This apparent effort to rationalize violence against judges is deplorable. On its face, while it contains doubletalk that simultaneously offers a justification for such violence and then claims not to, the fundamental core of the statement seems to be that judges have somehow brought this violence on themselves. This also carries an implicit threat: that if judges do not do what the far right wants them to do (thus becoming the "judicial activists" the far right claims to deplore), the violence may well continue.

If this is what Senator Cornyn meant to say, it is outrageous, irresponsible and unbecoming of our leaders. To be sure, I have disagreed with many, many court rulings. (For example, Bush v. Gore may well be the single greatest example of judicial activism we have seen in our lifetime.) But there is no excuse, no excuse, for a Member of Congress to take our discourse to this ugly and dangerous extreme.

My message is not subtle today. It is simple. To my Republican colleagues: you are playing with fire, you are playing with lives, and you must stop.

Senator Cornyn and Congressman DeLay should immediately retract these ill considered statements.

I was shocked and chagrinned to read in today's New York Times, that the Georgia Legislature had approved a new voter ID law, described as "the strictest measure in the country." The entire article is worth reading, but I would draw to your attention the following highlights (or should I say "lowlights"):

-- Georgia would be the first state not to permit an alternative to a photo ID, such as a signed affidavit.

-- another provision of the bill, supposedly designed to prevent voter fraud, would totally eliminate the requirement that a voter seeking an absentee ballot state a reason for wanting it, even though there is far greater concern about the use of absentee ballots for fraudulent purposes. If measures like this pass, it becomes all the more imperative to enact voting reform legislation that I and others have introduced to protect voting rights.

-- "Neither Geogia's secretary of state nor the secretary of state of Indiana, where a voter identification measure has been under consideration, could point to an allegation of voter identification fraud."

-- The AARP has observed that more than a third of Georgians over 75 lack a valid driver's license.

-- The bill would have a disproportionate impact on rural voters, given that Georgia's 159 counties have only 53 driver's license offices, and ten of them are in metropolitan Atlanta.

Sadly, this is not an April Fool's Day joke. In the wake of the second successive presidential election where systematized voter suppression has likely altered the winner of the presidency, some would respond to this by making it harder for poor, minority and seniors to vote. If anyone ever needed evidence of the danger of GOP rule, this has got to be exhibit one. I would urge everyone and their friends to weigh in with Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue, as well as the GOP-controlled Indiana Legisature and Governor Daniels to stop this madness.

In the year we should be celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, it is a disgrace we are forced to fight these modern day Jim Crow and Poll Tax requirements.

Earlier this week, the House Committee on the Judiciary officially announced the first in a series of hearings to consider the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act. Sixteen provisions of the controversial law are scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2005, if not renewed by the 109th Congress.

The details of the Act are, at best, troubling. Consider the �sneak and peak� provision. No matter how minor the crime investigated, section 213 of the Act empowers the FBI to search a home in secret and delay notifying the homeowner until weeks, months or even years later. The government need only show that notice could �jeopardize an investigation� or �unduly delay a trial� and may seek to extend the secrecy indefinitely.

The Department of Justice argues that these searches as modified by the PATRIOT Act are necessary to conduct investigations �without tipping off terrorists.� The fact of the matter is that federal law enforcement has had the authority to conduct secret searches of suspected terrorists since the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978. Section 213 allows the Justice Department to turn the �sneak and peak� against American citizens.

Make no mistake, the danger of these secret searches is more than theoretical. Section 213 has been used for searching a judge�s chambers, investigating fraudulent check writing and at least one case of health care fraud. Between October 26, 2001 and April 1, 2003, the Justice Department requested 248 extensions of �delayed� notification. Over that period, Section 213 was not applied once to combat terrorism.

Also up for debate is section 215, the infamous �library books� provision. Under this section, the Department of Justice may seize �any tangible thing��including books, letters, diaries, library records, and medical and psychiatric histories. At a June 2003 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Ashcroft claimed that the law could even be used to obtain genetic information. Under the Act, a court has no authority to reject such a request, however unreasonable, as long as the order is submitted in the correct form.

Although the Department of Justice urges us to believe that �terrorism investigators have no interest in the library habits of ordinary Americans,� I consider this aspect of the PATRIOT Act to be a serious threat to the First Amendment. All the federal government needs to subpoena our most private information is an investigation based on something other than First Amendment activity.

For example, in June 2004, the FBI used its new authority under the PATRIOT Act to investigate and shut down an art collective in Buffalo, New York. Under the pretense that the group had used biological materials in their artwork, federal law enforcement continued to subpoena materials and testimony after establishing that the artists possessed no toxic or hazardous materials.

For more on the details of the law, I refer you to the ACLU and the ABA, both of which are hosting forums and thorough descriptions of the sunsetting provisions.

Often, it is not the content of the PATRIOT Act but the incredibly aggressive manner in which general authoities have been applied by the Administration that represents the greatest threats to civil liberty. The Department of Justice has repeatedly disregarded both the First Amendment and the principle of presumed innocense�with no gain in security in exchange for our sacrifice.

Policy makers and pundits have laid down partisan concerns to fight the unprecedented danger of the PATRIOT Act. Dozens of conservative organizations have joined with the American Civil Liberties Union to form a new group, the Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances. As conservative commentator Paul Weyrich observes, this �unlikely group of patriots� is willing to set aside its differences and redirect the law to actually protect American citizens, not subject them to intrusive searches under the banner of homeland security.

I would be very much interested in learning of your concerns and reactions to the PATRIOT Act.

Today, not surprisingly, a Commission (appointed by the President) failed to find that the Administration manipulated intelligence in its assertions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the war. On the surface, this is really a dog bites man type of story, its conclusions coming from a source that is far from impartial.

For the other side of the story, check out Maureen Dowd's column today (registration required). Dowd points out the documented evidence that Administration officials did pressure intelligence analysts to reach foreordained conclusions, and then ensured that these trumped up facts appeared in presentations by Administration officials, including the Powell speech to the United Nations, and the President's infamous State of the Union Address. A few paragraphs:

"As The New Republic reported, Mr. Cheney lurked at the C.I.A. in the summer of 2002, an intimidating presence for young analysts. And Douglas Feith set up the Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon as a shadow intelligence agency to manufacture propaganda bolstering the administration's case.

The Office of Special Plans turned to the con man Ahmad Chalabi to come up with the evidence they needed. The Iraqi National Congress obliged with information that has now been debunked as exaggerated or fabricated. One gem was the hard-drinking relative of a Chalabi aide, a secret source code-named Curveball, who claimed to verify the mobile weapons labs.

Mr. Cheney and his "Gestapo office," as Colin Powell called it, then shoehorned all their meshugas about Saddam's aluminum tubes, weapons labs, drones and Al Qaeda links into Mr. Powell's U.N. speech."

Tellingly, Dowd also notes yesterday's New York Times story, where administration officials expressed relief that the report had failed to conclude that the intelligence was manipulated by Administration officials. Why the relief?

As David Corn of the Nation recently reminded us, the Senate Intelligence Committee had promised a post-election investigation of the political manipulation of pre-war intelligence, but has now apparently dropped the matter. Why wait until after the election, if the conclusions -- from a bipartisan panel -- would be as benign as those found by the President's hand-picked Commission? And why drop it now?

These questions are far from academic, and far from partisan. The costs of these failures, and the reasons for them, are not just measured in political capital and taxpayer money, but in lives. In light of these tragic consequences as a result of mistake and manipulation, we are owed better answers.

The British comedy troupe Monty Python performed a famous sketch in which a man went to an "Argument Clinic" seeking an intellectual exchange of ideas with a professional debater, only to find mere contradiction. When the man pointed out that mere contradiction is not argument, the rejoinder from the professional debater was "yes, it is." And so it goes in the debates of our time with the Radical Right.

I have been struck time and time again with, when faced with less than favorable facts, the radical right does not refute the facts, it simply makes up facts of its own. That was repeatedly the case with the Schiavo matter. When faced with hours of courtroom testimony about Terri Schiavo's medical condition, the right simply props up other questionable authorities to say such facts are in dispute; first, a bogus "nobel prize nominated" doctor, then, a nurse deemed not credible by a court of law, legislators claiming to be medical experts, and finally -- and most laughably-- a TV psychic. The news media, of course, in a "fair and balanced" way treats both authorities with equal weight, despite the obvious differences in credibility, and, thus, indisputable facts are placed in question.

I am not the first to say this, but it used to be the rule of reason was that "you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts." Today, you are indeed apparently entitled to your own facts.

This brings me to the latest blog by the always succinct and often on-target Keith Olbermann. In his blog, Olbermann discusses the many scurrilous accusations that have been lobbed at Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo. According to Olbermann, prior to her cremation, Mrs. Schiavo will undergo an autopsy. Olbermann believes it will put many of these accusations to rest:

"This case should now be considered closed. Obviously it will not be. It will be perpetuated by a few good, sad people who do not want the woman they know as daughter, sister, or friend, to die. It will be perpetuated by others who cannot come to grips with the incongruity of part of her brain still acting automatically, like a stoplight in the middle of a desert. But mostly it will be perpetuated by people who do not and have not given a damn about Terri Schiavo, or her parents, or anyone but themselves and the opportunities to exploit this situation for their own personal or political beliefs.

Michael Schiavo�s insistence on an autopsy will resolve more than just how hopeless his wife�s situation really has been. It will also be an autopsy on the credibility of those who have tried to manipulate her insentient condition. For, unless Michael Schiavo is a battering spouse or murderer, and a complete idiot, his public critics will be revealed as snake-oil salesmen who have not only exploited his wife, but also thousands of Americans who� just like me, and no doubt just like you� would love nothing more than to see Terri Schiavo rise from her bed and go home, happy, healthy, and fully restored."

Of course, as Olbermann notes in passing, it will not resolve anything. The right will trot out its own "nobel prize nominated" medical examiners, legislators posing as medical experts, and maybe even TV psychics. Again, the news media will give all opinions, no matter how specious, equal weight.

In a world where the radical right attacks "moral relativism," it simultaneously refuses to concur in empirical facts. We simply cannot have productive policy debates in our democracy unless we have an agreed upon set of facts. But we will not unless and until the press begins to call out these purveyors of falsity.

[JC responds: As of noon on Friday, April 1, I have read all thirty-seven comments posted here. Once again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.

While I reserve the right to keep this website suitable for all viewers, I have instructed my staff to leave even the most scathing criticisms online and unedited for you to read. If we are going to have a real dialogue here, I expect some controversy. I am fully aware that reasonable people can disagree, and that unreasonable people like to make themselves heard.

E.J. Dionne has a great column in today�s Washington Post discussing the consequences of quieting the opposition. Policy can only be improved and informed by genuine debate. And genuine debate means that everyone, including my detractors, gets an opportunity to speak.

Please keep the comments coming.]

On the lighter side, William Rivers Pitt, in his fine blog at truthout.org (I met Mr. Pitt when he interviewed me on the day of the Ohio challenge and he was one of the very best/most knowledgable internet journalists on the Ohio beat), reveals how the Bush Administration is tearing families apart. What is the saying about politics making strange bedfellows? This is parody, of course, but a fun diversion.

Also, I am thinking about adding a blogroll (links to other blogs I get information from and recommend) to this page. Any you would suggest?

The front page of this morning�s Roll Call asks whether the latest polling is a bad omen for the Republican majority. The March Gallup poll pegs approval ratings for President Bush down seven points to 45 percent. A CBS News poll places Congressional approval at a dreary 34 percent.

If I were taking stock as a Republican gearing up for the 2006 elections, I might be very, very worried. As a Democrat, I am not surprised by the numbers. I have a great and abiding faith in the American electorate. Left or right, liberal or conservative, the voters will eventually hold accountable those leaders who exploit their trust for political gain.

Faced with painful, deeply private decisions about the care of our loved ones, reasonable people can disagree. This Republican leadership has disregarded due process and left no room for disagreement. The President has justified a public intrusion into the affairs of the Schiavo family by arguing that �in a case such as this, the legislative branch, the executive branch ought to err on the side of life.� E. J. Dionne points out the tremendous inconsistency of the Bush Administration when it really comes to �cases such as these.�

There is no aspect of the Terry Schiavo case that is not tragic. But grasping for the political upside to that tragedy is morally reprehensible. This latest round of polling only demonstrates that the American people have noticed.

As is usual, the New York Times does an excellent job in providing in depth coverage and perspective on the week that was. I can commend several pieces concerning the continuing fall out from Schiavo to you for your persusal.

In today's New York Times "Week in Review" section there is a good article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg entitled "The Dangers of Political Theater" that highlights the very deep divide between the GOP Congress and the people on this issue. Although some in the GOP predict the issue will fade in the public's mind, one strategist, speaking on the usual "condition of anonymity" acknowledged " a mini-revolt" and noted "They [GOP Members] walked the plank on Social Security reform under much duress, and now they were walking the plank on Schiavo, you're going to see the beginning of Bush's difficulties with Congress for a second term because the congressman deal in self-preservation and these are just two strikes for 2005,a nd we're just getting through the first quarter."

In today's New York Times "Arts & Leisure" section, the always insightful and biting Frank Rich has written a piece entitled "The God Racket, from DeMille to DeLay" in which he derides last week's congressional intervention as a "full-scale jihad." However, I must disagree with his point towards the end of the article that "most Democratic leaders went into hiding and stayed silent" on several fronts. It is true that there was no real debate or record vote in the Senate (though some brave Senators did express their opposition). However, as someone who was on the House floor for the debate, I can state without qualification that there was real and meaningful passion on our side on the matter. Every single Democrat who spoke during the debate opposed the legislation, as well as two Republicans. We had more speakers come forward than the Republicans did. It was only through the courageous actions of Members like Reps. Wexler, Wasserman-Schultz, and Davis of Florida, Wu and Blumenauer of Oregon, and Frank of MA that we even had a full-fledged debate and vote. But for their willingness to object to the proposed unanimous consent debate and force the Members to return from their recess, the nation would have been denied this critical debate. Our Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who was unable to return from an important trip to the Mideast for the emergency session, issued a strong statement against the bill. Our Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer closed our debate, and was quite eloquent in his opposition. My good friend and former Judiciary Colleague Barney Frank was his usual brilliant self in controlling the opposition time. While many of my colleagues could not return for yet another vote we knew we would lose, the majority of Democrats voting, voted No. In the House, Democrats were strongly and forcefully represented, and I believe the Nation is better for it.

Let me close by noting that it is now being reported in "Sunday Morning Talk" (via Kos) that even President Bush's people are backpeddling from the matter, saying the president didn't want to return to sign the bill to begin with. I guess this is some sort of reverse triangulation, where you make up your mind and then try to say you were somewhere in the middle.

Polls now show that President Bush has hit his lowest popularity of his presidency -- a 43% approval rate. Some assert that this is merely a short term effect of the GOP's highly unpopular intervention in the Schiavo matter. I believe that while that is a contributing cause, the overall decline is the result of long term, and likely irreversible trends.


The significance of improper intervention in the Schiavo case goes beyond the narrow facts of the case and concerns about federalism and separation of powers (as important as they are). With Schiavo, the entire nation was exposed to the win at all costs mentality of the Repubican Party, and the fact that their deeds do not match their rhetoric:

-- You can't talk about being pro-life, when you're decimating Medicaid, when you are preventing life-saving stem cell research, when you allow guns to flow freely to terrorists, when you practically ignore the tragic school shooting in Minnesota, when your abortion laws actually threaten women's health and lives, and when more than 1,500 American soldiers and more than 100,000 innocent civilians have died in Iraq as a result of a misguided war.

-- You can't say you're pro-democracy when you ignore not only repressive regimes abroad, but tolerate and encourage torture, and disparage voting rights in our own nation.

-- You can't talk about saving Social Security, when your privatization plan would bankrupt the program.

-- You can't say you're pro-family, when your bankruptcy bill would put credit card companies ahead of families, and your labor policy harms working families by denying overtime and any increase in the minimum wage.

-- You can't say you're the party of fiscal solvency, when we began the Bush presidency with a more than 200 billion/year surplus, and our deficit is now some 420 billion per year and counting (and the voters now realize all that red ink can't be explained away by 9/11)

-- You can't come up with Orwellian names like "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" bills when the policies in those bills sell out to the polluters and you're gutting the EPA's budget and exposing our children to mercury and arsenic.

-- You also can't champion a bill known as "No Child Left Behind" (which was actually stolen) when you won't even keep your promise to fund the program.

-- You certainly can't support bills like the "Patriot Act," which so unpatriotically allow sneak and peek searches and snooping on people's library records.

-- You can't claim to court immigrants with your policies, when your proposals would gut asylum protections, take away habeas corpus rights, and allow deporations for donating to groups you had no idea were associated with terrorists.

-- You can't claim to be anti-crime, when the crime rate is going up, and funding for local law enforcement and local cop on the beat program is in a free fall.

-- You can't claim to support the rule of law, when you change the redistricting rules to suit your whims and political needs, and are considering going "nuclear" on the Senate fillibuster rules.

-- You can't claim to be pro-military, when your engagedi n a back-door draft, are gutting vetersans benefits, and won't even protect our brave soldiers from unscrupulous pay-day lenders.

-- You can't claim to be a uniter when you have consistently sought out wedge issues that divide our nation and consistently use the threat of terrorism to advance your own short-term political objectives.

-- You can't claim you support liberties such as freedom of the press and separation of church and state, when you have turned our federal government into a mere political propoganda machine, spewing out pre-packaged news; and when you have foisted organized religion into our government and politics and onto the House and Senate flooors.

I received a particularly apt comment from one of my readers, a Dr. Alan H. Levinson, who wrote:

I was just outside, looking at my American Flag. I used to be so proud of this country�but now I�m considering taking it down. I never thought I�d hear myself say this. I�m in tears as I write this letter.

"I am a 47 year old American male, too young for Vietnam, and too old for any subsequent conflicts. I am a Doctor by profession, but a(n) historian by nature. I spent significant time enjoying conversations with my grandfather regarding �the olden days�, during the turn of the century. Between him and his brothers, my grandmother and her sisters, I heard plenty about this great country.

Now I find that I�m no longer so proud. Now I find that this country, for the past 5 years, has taken a turn I never thought possible. This country was created for a reason, and with a glorious goal in mind. Well, times change, and so do methods of achieving those goals, but the goal itself didn�t have to. Suddenly, with circumstances as they are, and particular leaders in power, and along with a good dose of arrogance, everything has changed. The rules that bound this country have become irrelevant, and rules are changed, with no regard to ethics, in order to gain extra advantage. This is analogous to the current issues in Major League Baseball. Some people feel it�s important to change the rules during the game, no matter who gets hurt, or whether the playing field remains level.

I am embarrassed by my country."

--

The list goes on and on.

The long and short of it is that the Repubilican Party has sold our nation a bill of goods, and it is only now that people are realizing the promises don't simply add up. I thought that most Americans would have realized this after 4 years of Bush, but now I realize it may take 6 years. That is why I now believe that the '06 midterms are so important, and I am going to devote myself to helping take back the House for the Democrats.

Let me know if you agree with these thoughts and if you have additional items to add to my list.

[Note: Edited for grammar after original posting, thanks to my attentive readers/editors. Thx. --JC]

[JC Responds -- OK, as of 9:30 AM Eastern Time on Sunday, I have reviewed the 25 comments, and updated and reedited my blog based on the input of you my readers. Thank you so much for your comments. They are truly gratifying.

In terms of changing the entry, I have of course fixed the grammar (#6). I have added that more than 100,000 innocent civilians have died in Iraq (#1). I have added the point regarding the manufactured news, and improperly inserting relilgion into politics. I have beefed up the EPA point (#24). And I have added Dr. Levinson's very eloquent language (#12). I have added the Minnesota gun hypocrisy (#23).

In terms of other comments, I would note as follows. Yes it is ok to forward this blog to to others, and I would encourage you to do so (#1). Hiring a PR firm is a good idea (#2), I will attempt to raise with Dr. Dean at DNC. I agree we need more Member blogs, and I will raise with my colleagues (but we're on recess now) (#3). We do need more moments of confrontation over principle (#5). I will continue to share ideas about responding to the Ohio election debacle with Rep. Tubbs Jones and Sherrod Brown, I am good friends with both of them (#10). We do need to get these outrages into the mainstream media -- I work on this every day (#18). I have looked at Raw Story's "Paper Chase" proposal and agree it is a good idea and plan to do it myself and encourage my readers to do #25). I apoloigize if I have missed any comments or failed to comment on any of them -- They were also very helpful.

I now propose taking the updated version, aided and abetted by your comments, and submitting as an editorial. I will check this entry later today to see if you have any further comments or suggestions.]

One of the main reasons I have set up this interactive blog, was to receive ideas, input, and suggestions from you. So far I have received scores of comments, and I have reviewed each and every one of them. Today, I ask for your ideas and thoughts about election reform. I hope to use this as an opportunity to solicit your ideas and suggestions on other issues of public concern in the future.

One of the most significant actions I have taken as a legislator was taking the lead in investigating the election debacle in Ohio and around the nation. As many of you now know, I lead to congressional forums into the matter, conducted a wide ranging investigation, and prepared a 106 page report on the irregularities in Ohio. These actions led to the Congressional challenge to the Ohio results last January 6. The Report in turn has been downloaded and read by hundreds of thousands of individuals.

I must tell you my loyal readers that we have not given up. We have introduced legislation. We have held forums. We have held press conferences. We have written letters. We have asked for hearings. We have asked the GAO to investigate. We have asked the Justice Department and the Ohio authorities to investigate. I have written op-eds. I have pushed the election machinery companies to adopt voluntary principles to make every vote count. I have written the Federal Election Commission. I have asked the Congressional Research Service to investigate. While we have not received anything near a complete or full response, especially from the now notorious Ohio Secretary of State, Mr. J. Kenneth Blackwell, we have gleaned important information that has informed the public.

I would like to use this blog as an opportunity for you to provide me with your suggestions and ideas for raising the visibility of this issue and advancing the cause of election reform. Let me know your thoughts.

[J.C. Responds. I have now read the 76 comments received on this blog as of Sunday, March 27 at 2:30 PM. I am truly overwhelmed by the outpouring of responses, ideas and suggestions on this, the very seminal issue that we as a nation and a party need to reconcile if we are to be able to say we are a democracy where every voter and ever vote is accorded equal diginity and respect. I am still digesting many of the comments, but allow me to give you my immediate reactions.

-- I plan to review in depth each and every comment, and find an appropriate forum to submit them into the record.

-- there were more comments supporting the idea of a verifibable paper trail than any other proposal. I counted 38 such comments. I support this propsosal and plan to continue to fight for it, via legislation as well as standards voluntarily accepted by election companies.

-- there were numerous other specific suggestions -- election day holiday, open software, non-partisan election boards and secretaries of state, on-line voting, criminalizing voter intimidation, a constitutional amendment to protect the right to vote, delaying the vote count, and instant run-offs, to name but a few. Many, but not all of these are included in bills introduced by myself and other Congressional Reps and Senators (for example, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. has advocated a Constitutional Amendment for many years), but we obviously need to continue to highlight all of these issues.

-- there were numerous specific objectives for elevating this issue, that I plan to look into and follow up on as feasible. These include:
* stating on web the number of days that have passed without reform
* transmitting information regarding vote rigging to all Represenatives
* setting up an account on DailyKos
* Working with liberal publications like the Nation and the American Prospect to do a special issue on the Voting Crisis
* ask all those with information on voting fraud to come forward
* set up massive absentee voter campaign
* hire a public relations firm
* set up an election reform pac
* advocate for a shared election center for counties to communicate with each other on issues of common concern

-- This is but a brief summary. I apologize if I did not mention a comment specifically, but they are all important to me and I take them all very seriously.

-- Please keep sending me your comments and suggestions, and please ask your friends and family members to do the same. Thank you.]

Perhaps the one good thing to come out of the Schiavo tragedy is that Americans are now acutely aware of the importance of having living wills. If Terri Schiavo had completed a living will before her medical problems, I don't think we would have ever been forced to undergo this national tragedy.

For those of you who are interested in learning more about the benefits of living wills, you should go to these excellent cites available through AARP and the US Living Will Registry.

Since the nation is by now painfully aware, family law and end of life issues are traditionally state law issues (even if that has not yet registered with Mr. DeLay). That means that each state has different laws and procedures for creating living wills. For those of you who live in Michigan, both the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News have prepared some very useful materials, including pdf's of actual draft documents.

As everyone no doubt knows, today the Supreme Court rejected the Schindler's appeal of the 11th circuit decision not to intervene in the case. That may offer the family and the nation some finality in this wrenching tragedy. It has further been reported in our local legislative paper, The Hill, that the Congress will not intervene further.

It has been stated many times, that this issue is so ripe with hypocrisies -- I mean inconsistencies -- by the GOP, that it is difficult to fathom: Obviously, the inconsistencies on states rights and separation of powers; not to mention the fact that GOP budget would decimate Medicaid, resulting in the loss of an estimated 18,000 lives per year; as well as President Bush's having signed a Texas law as Governor in 1999, essentially mandating the removal of life support mechanisms where the family could no longer afford them. Is there any doubt who favors life?

Today, my editorial advocating for bloggers rights was posted on CNET (Actually, this editorial was posted on my own cite as part of a comment to an earlier entry before I got a chance to post it -- you guys are fast!).

This is a follow up to the letter that I along with 15 of my colleagues wrote to the FEC asking that they grant bloggers an exemption from the campaign finance laws comporable to the one granted to print and broadcast media, and my concern over a state law case in California raising doubts regarding whether Internet-based media would be entitled to the same priveleges of confidentiality that the print media received.

My sense is that we are going to win this issue, at least at the FEC. Not only has Senator Minority Leader Reid weighed in with a bill to provide a bloggers exemption, but the authors of the Campaign Finance Law, Senators McCain and Feingold and Reps. Shays and Meehan have also written a similar letter to the FEC. Hopefully the courts will understand this issue as well and accord journalist bloggers the same legal priveleges newspaper and other reporters have.

As I explained in the editorial, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"The basis of our government being the opinion of people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter."

In Jefferson's era, print newspapers revolutionized the way the country read and processed the news. Today we stand on the precipice of a new media revolution with the advent of the Internet. We need to protect bloggers' First Amendment rights so they can help us protect our own citizens' rights.

The indefatigible Brad Friedman of BradBlog has the story about Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's appearance before the House Administration Committee field hearing in Columbus. As most readers of this blog probably know, I repeatedly invited Mr. Blackwell to answer questions about Ohio's Presidential election, either verbally or in writing, and never heard back (despite his assurances, through his spokesman, that he would be happy to "fill in the blanks" for me).

While I await a transcript of his testimony, I am not encouraged by press or other accounts I have heard, which make clear that Blackwell has yet to come clean about what happened in Ohio. Indeed, Mr. Blackwell reportedly still clings to the notion that "Ohio...had one of the best Election Administration performances in the country." If by that he means that he was the best Secretary of State in the nation at weighing the paper that registration forms were printed on, well...I wholeheartedly agree. If, however, he means treating voters fairly, I don't know who to believe: him or my lying eyes? (LARGE MOV FILE)

I see the 11th circuit has upheld the district court decision, and the case will now be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Court declines to intervene, I am fearful Congress will again be called into emergency session to consider this case -- the Adjournment Resolution granted the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader the ability to call us back based on the "public interest." However the case is resolved, it will be a personal and political tragedy.

Today the Detroit News ran my editorial on this matter., entitled "Why Would GOP Congress Try to Overrule State and Intrude on Sensitive Family Matter?" It is worth a look.

Today I and eight of my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee wrote a letter to Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner, asking him to immediately consider responses to the shooting rampage in and around a Minnesota high school. The Minneapolis Star Tribune has a story out on the letter.

I fear we are reaping what we have sewed with regard to crime policies in our nation. We have allowed the assault weapons ban to expire. We have created a loophole by which terrorists are able to buy not only guns, but long rifles that can wreak tremendous damage. We have failed to push for safety controls on guns. We have failed to properly fund local police and safety officers. And now the House and Senate are poised to largely immunize gun manufacturers from legal liability. Something is wrong with this picture.

I believe that if the Congress can be called back to deal with a single state court decision in the Schiavo case, that we can certainly returning to protect our school children from violence. Thousands of children are killed and maimed each year because of gun violence, and yet we do nothing about it while we are distracted by political posturing. These problems existed before the latest outrage, but they still warrant a legislative response by the Congress.

I really need to commend the local media in Detroit for their coverage of Congress' mishandling of this matter. For example, today's Detroit Free Press lead editorial entitled "A Matter of Life and Votes" reiterated many of the points I made on the House Floor on Sunday evening -- namely that the bill intruded on traditional principles of separation of powers, federalism, and family privacy (and I am not just commending them because they quoted from my floor statement, which they did). The Free Press also included two excellent op-eds. The first, by Prof. Michael Anthony Lawrence of Michigan State Law School explained how "the U.S. Congress is out of control" and that the Schiavo bill "was only the latest example of how uncomprehending Congress is of the proper role of our legislative branch in our constitutional design." The second, by John H. MacKeigan and Howard Brody of the Michigan State Medical Society explains how fundamentally inconsistent the Schiavo bill is with medical understanding of the Schiavo family tragedy. The Detroit News has had excellent coverage as well, and are planning to run an op-ed penned by myself in Wednesday's issue.

The Shiavo case appears to have touched a real nerve with the American people. I have been saying for the last ten years of GOP Rule in the House, that they have misused and abused their power. This latest overreaching appears to have galvanized the American people in a way others have not, at least that is what I have seen in and around my District.

You can link to my statement on the House floor concerning the Schiavo legislation here.

More happened over the weekend than the Schiavo legislation. I released a letter along with 22 of my colleagues in the House asking the various election machinery firms to adopt voluntary principles to provide for a verifiable paper ballot, machine auditability, non-partisan operation of election firms, and open and accessible software codes. Since we have no guarantee the meaningful legislation will pass, it is imperative that firms move voluntarily to safeguard the integrity of our elections. If they don't, my colleagues and I will do everything in our power to insure that non-complying firms do not receive federal funding. The text of the letter can be read on the Velvet Revolution's web site.

I have known David Broder for a long time. However, from time to time, we disagree. One such instance was when he was reported to have said of President Clinton (during the Clinton impeachment), "He came in here and he trashed the place and it's not his place." Broder apparently reflected a widespread disdain for President Clinton among well-known and influential Washington pundits and journalists. Many rightly felt the national dialogue, and the Georgetown cocktail party chatter, was coarsened by the widespread currency given to graphic sexual descriptions contained in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's report. Where Broder and others were wrong was in their assessment of blame -- it was Starr and Congressional Republicans, not President Clinton, that foisted salacious material on the American public. Not only was the "place" being trashed, but democracy itself was being trashed, by the ruthless use of constitutional powers for political gain by Congressional Republicans.

Today, our institutions are under an even greater assault. The most immediate example is the meddling of Congress and President Bush in the Terri Schiavo case. Early this morning, the House passed and the President signed into law, a bill that would cast aside state court litigation in the Schiavo matter and send the matter instead to a preordained federal court (where supporters of the bill hope for a preordained outcome). More importantly, the bill turns Florida law and, indeed, more than 200 years of common law on its head, by eviscerating the right of Schiavo's husband to communicate her wishes.

Make no mistake about it, with this bill, Congress has usurped the roles of courts, of doctors, of priests, of parents, and of spouses. This presents a dire and immediate threat to our democratic system of government. And it is only the beginning.

Last year, Republicans passed two bills stripping the Federal courts of their power to review cases involving the Defense of Marriage Act and the Pledge of Allegiance because they feared they would take too kind a view of Constituional rights. Last month, Republicans passed a class action bill that took jurisdiction away from State courts because they believe such courts treat corporate crooks too harshly. The rules of our democracy and constitution are being manipulated to achieve desired ends, with no thought given to the long term consequences.

It isn't just the courts, the Congressional leadership has systematically cast aside the norms of politics and comity in state legislatures. In days gone by, congressional residtricting was known to be so politically contentious and coarsening of relationships, that state legislatures felt bound by the Constitution and decency to only engage in such efforts every ten years, as required by the Constitution. In Texas and now, in Georgia, those norms have been cast aside. The legacy will be ceaseless partisan manipulation for maximum political benefit, with diminishing returns to the American people.

The list goes on and on and on. The Government Accountability Office warns this Administration to stop polluting the airwaves with political propanganda disguised as news. The Administration responds by instructing its agencies to ignore such warnings. And so the press is tarnished.

The Courts repeatedly rebuke the Administration for ignoring the right to counsel, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to a speedy trial in terrorism related investigations. The Administration continues to do the same under new and equally specious legal theories. And so the bill of rights is diminished.

They are trashing the place. Not just Washington dinner parties, but the foundations of our democracy and the glue that binds our institutions. When is enough, simply enough?

Today, I am relaunching my blog. In response to many comments, the blog is now interactive, with a comments section. It also now allows linking to individual posts.

In the days ahead, I will be reading your comments and, where appropriate, responding to them.

Thanks for your continued support.

It has been so busy this week, that I have had a hard time doing any posting. Yesterday was particularly busy in the Judiciary Committee

Bankruptcy -- We spent 8 hours debating the anti-consumer, special interest bankruptcy bill. At the beginning of the markup, Chairman Sensenbrenner announced the Republicans would reject any and all amendments. They proceeded to reject all of our amendments -- including amendments to protect the military against unscrupulous pay day lenders who charge 100, 500, or 1000% interest; and to protect members of the military who become disabled while on duty. They even rejected amendments to protect debtors who were forced to file because they were victims of identify theft. A sad day for the American consumer, and unfortunately, the bill is likely to be on the House floor in early April.

Gannon Resolution -- Yesterday, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee voted down my Resolution of Inquiry on Gannongate. The entire debate was simulcast on the House Judiciary web site, and is archived there as well. All we wanted was the answer to one question: who gave Jeff Gannon, a fake journalist, unlimited access to the White House press briefings? But the Resolution was rejected on a party-line vote, 21-10. At least now we have some accountability and responsibility for this travesty. In the mean time, we will prepare to press our outstanding FOIA request on this matter. Here is a good press summary of the proceedings.

We will be on recess for the next two weeks, but I will continue to post, of course. Hopefully we will soon have our new and improved -- and interactive -- blog.